'Protected' Great White Shark Bites Young Man in Half

Due to their "protected status," great whites are not allowed to be killed in Australia, same goes for New Zealand, South Africa, and even in America. Penalties differ, but in New Zealand if you dare to kill one of these beasts you face a potential $250,000 fine and 6 months in prison.

Thanks to the government, these vicious predators are allowed to roam free, and they've already killed five people off Australia's western coast this year. The latest victim was a 24 year old surfer who was literally bitten in half by one of these "protected" predators.

Moron environmentalists have managed to concoct a ridiculous fantasy these killers are some gentle creatures who are no threat to anyone. Please tell that to this young boy who just got bitten in half. While I wouldn't dispute a fully fed great white may be gentle and relatively harmless, being in the water with a great white while it's out feeding is an entirely different scenario.

The fact of the matter is people have no idea how many of these sharks there actually are in the ocean, there could be hundreds of thousands of them, or as some estimate as little as 3,500. No one has any actual clue, as the ocean is unimaginably massive there is no way to know with any sort of certainty how many are out there.

The issue here is one of self-defense and whether or not human should be allowed to advance as a species. Should people be allowed to defend themselves against the dangers of the outside world, or do we have to just accept life as it is now and forgo any hope of progress?

We build houses out of steel to defend against hurricanes, we put up mosquito nets to defend against mosquitoes festering with disease, yet when it comes to great whites the government says we need to "swim with the fishes."
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

Sydney - Following the recent death of a surfer off Western Australia, the world’s media idiots have been having a field day talking about The Death Coast. Great White sharks are good copy- If you don’t have a brain or an education.
The mere fact that 5 fatal shark attacks occurred in 10 months, in areas where Great White sharks have been known for centuries, has been enough to produce a media feeding frenzy:

incoherent ramblings? im sorry if you have trouble understanding plain english or youre dyslexic or suffer other obtuse reading comprehension issues, but i assure you, everything ive said has been aimed at being easily understood by anyone who has competently completed standard primary education.

maybe its time you went and checked your imaginary spider traps, just in case therey need resetting.

"The fact of the matter is people have no idea how many of these sharks there actually are in the ocean, there could be hundreds of thousands of them, or as some estimate as little as 3,500. No one has any actual clue, "

hence the "ridiculous" monitoring problem - as ridiculous as any other wildlife reseach -

species extinction is occuring at an increasing rate as it is.. you think going around killing off animals because YOU perceive it as a problem is not even worth pause to even understand how big a problem it is or it isnt in the first place.

hippos kill people.. should we wipe them off the face of the earth too? crocodiles... elephants.. where would you draw the line? or wouldnt you.. lets just get ride of all the wildlife eh?

actually.. people kill people too.. and ya never know which are the dangerous ones.. they have a tendency to appear perfectly tame.. and then suddenly - bang! they turn postal..

"these vicious predators are allowed to roam free" LMAO! I mean this is a joke right?

Hey I got a great idea! Let's have no population control, no pollution regulation,, no protected species, no protected parks, forests, reefs, etc...hey let's through no government in the mix so there aren't any laws too! I'm a genius! This solves everything! We can just hand all those F-16, Nuclear weapons, biological agents over to some company like Hallibuton or IBM or AG Farben or...

Hey Chris sorry for delay in getting back to you about my 'original theory' and afraid it will have to wait a little bit longer as to busy just now to explain it respectfully. But soon I will.
For now may I just pay my respects to the discussion between you and A200. Both of you educate me well, thank you.

I said multiple times I'm not advocating killing all threatening animals, merely allowing people to protect themselves. If your brain interprets someone advocating being allowed to protect ones self as someone advocating wiping all possibly threatening species off the planet then perhaps you are the dysfunctional one.

The same nonsense is applied to people who advocate for private gun ownership -- "oh so you want everyone to go around killing everyone else?!" Uh, no, I think everyone should be allowed to defend themselves rather than having only taxfeeders and the ruling class having arms while everyone else is disarmed slaves.

To quote Fredric Bastiat, "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Therefor saying people should be allowed to kill great whites without facing 6 months in prison and a $250,000 fine means advocating wiping out the entire species.

"I said multiple times I'm not advocating killing all threatening animals, merely allowing people to protect themselves. If your brain interprets someone advocating being allowed to protect ones self as someone advocating wiping all possibly threatening species off the planet then perhaps you are the dysfunctional one. "

but that doesnt stop you from calling anyone who doesnt agree with going out killing sharks, ( even if theyve never attacked anyone ) an enviro-fascist does it ya stupid hypocrite.

'Protected' person shoots 14 people to death
fuckwit | InformationLiberation

The nutter-fascist Amerikan government is literally throwing it's citizens to the firing squad.

Due to their "protected status," retards are not allowed to be killed in Amerika, same goes for New Zealand, South Africa, and even in Austraylya. Penalties differ, but in New Zealand if you dare to kill one of these beasts you face a potential $250,000 fine and 6 months in prison.

Thanks to the government, these vicious predators are alloweAmerikas badlands this year. The latest victims were 14 movie goers and 30 others who narrowly escaped, murdered in cold blood by one of these "protected" predators.

Moron legislators have managed to concoct a ridiculous fantasy these killers are some gentle creatures who are no threat to anyone. Please tell that to these younginocents who just wanted to watch a film. While I wouldn't dispute a fully indoctrinated fuckwit may be gentle and relatively harmless, being in the cinema with a such a moron while it's out playing is an entirely different scenario.

The fact of the matter is people have no idea how many of these fuckwits there actually are in the cinemas, there could be hundreds of thousands of them, or as some estimate as little as 3,500. No one has any actual clue, as the cinemas are unimaginably massive there is no way to know with any sort of certainty how many are out there.

The issue here is one of self-defense and whether or not human should be allowed to advance as a species. Should people be allowed to defend themselves against the dangers of the inside world, or do we have to just accept life as it is now and forgo any hope of progress?

We build houses out of steel to defend against hurricanes, we set up spider traps to defend against spiders festering with malevolent intent, yet when it comes to psychopaths the government says we need to "shut up until the credits roll"
_

was the shooter familiar with your civilian disarmament laws? were the victims? did your cicilian disarmament laws protect anyone in that theater?

i guess youre too much of a narcissist to ever even acknowledge the possibility that you might be wrong about something, thats why you totally ignored my question about how you would propose "protecting" yourself from shark attacks.

Civilian disarmament means the laws mandating civilians be disarmed, therefor incapable of defending themselves, so no, they didn't protect anyone, they did the opposite.

As to the what people should be allowed to do to protect themselves, I said repeatedly *they should be allowed to protect themselves.* Repeal the prohibition on killing sharks, how people solve their problems is up to them, that's what freedom is all about.

and re the laws.. so you think its a better idea to have a dark movie theater full of people shooting blindly.. the cops come in and everyones pointing guns everywhere.. - let the cops shoot them all and sort it out later eh? :)

im not arguing about the gun laws here anyway.. i was just using it as an example.. that compared to just about everything else you need to worry about that could kill you... the odds of being chomped in half by a shark are miniscule..

its not surprising that you seem to be incapable of comprehending the simplest points..

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.